Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. KT scored 50.8, VEON scored 71.8 — VEON leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. KT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VEON's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
KT
KT Corporation
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
50.8
$18.30 · $8.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.0
VEON leads
VEON
VEON Ltd.
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
71.8
$76.81 · $5.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestKT9.9x
Fastest growthVEON+9.9%
Strongest balance sheetKT0.62
Highest qualityVEON78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueVEON-39%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
KT
stronger →← stronger
VEON
48
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
59
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
VEON is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
KT
VEON
$811mC+
FCF
$620mC+
+7.1%B
Rev
+9.9%B
0.62B
D/E
3.05C
9.9xA-
P/E
98.5xD
4.41D
PEG
2.23C
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
KT
VEON
23% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
39% below
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~0%/yr
+35%
1-yr DCF upside
+35%
+29%
5-yr DCF upside
+63%
+22%
10-yr DCF upside
+110%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
KT
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (KRW)
VEON
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
KTKT Corporation
Telecom Services · $18.30 · beta 0.09
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $8.7b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $24.58 — deep drawdown territory. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $21.94 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Net margin 4.7% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 7% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
VEONVEON Ltd.
Telecom Services · $76.81 · beta 1.61
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $5.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $78.83 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $86.87 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 36% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 105% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 3.05 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 98.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where KT and VEON diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.0 points in favor of VEON. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityKT 47.6 · VEON 78.1VEON +30.5
GrowthKT 59.3 · VEON 78.4VEON +19.1
ValueKT 63.9 · VEON 60.5KT +3.4
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is VEON or KT the better stock?
VEON scores higher: VEON 71.8, KT 50.8 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do VEON and KT differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where VEON leads by 31 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are VEON and KT scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.